The Stack Overflow podcast is back! Listen to an interview with our new CEO.
2 typo, grammar
source | link

This is a dilemma: you cannot close the issue as "fixed", because you don't actually know if it was fixed, or at least even if some issue was fixed, you don't actually know whether this was the issue the reporter was talking about. On the other hand, you don't want to leave an issue that might have been fixed open, especially if you won't ever be able to close it because you'll never get confirmation.

So, you should close it, but probably not as "fixed". You could invent a custom close reason "maybefixed" or "unconfirdmedfix""unconfirmedfix" if you want to be positive or "reportervanished" if you don't. You could also just say "could not reproduce", and wait for the same bug to pop up for a more responsive reporter.

However, you doshould not want to expend unnecessary resources on a bug for which you will never know whether it was actually fixed or not.

This is a dilemma: you cannot close the issue as "fixed", because you don't actually know if it was fixed, or at least even if some issue was fixed, you don't actually know whether this was the issue the reporter was talking about. On the other hand, you don't want to leave an issue that might have been fixed open, especially if you won't ever be able to close it because you'll never get confirmation.

So, you should close it, but probably not as "fixed". You could invent a custom close reason "maybefixed" or "unconfirdmedfix" if you want to be positive or "reportervanished" if you don't. You could also just say "could not reproduce", and wait for the same bug to pop up for a more responsive reporter.

However, you do not want to expend unnecessary resources on a bug for which you never know whether it was actually fixed or not.

This is a dilemma: you cannot close the issue as "fixed", because you don't actually know if it was fixed, or at least even if some issue was fixed, you don't actually know whether this was the issue the reporter was talking about. On the other hand, you don't want to leave an issue that might have been fixed open, especially if you won't ever be able to close it because you'll never get confirmation.

So, you should close it, but probably not as "fixed". You could invent a custom close reason "maybefixed" or "unconfirmedfix" if you want to be positive or "reportervanished" if you don't. You could also just say "could not reproduce", and wait for the same bug to pop up for a more responsive reporter.

However, you should not expend resources on a bug for which you will never know whether it was actually fixed or not.

1
source | link

This is a dilemma: you cannot close the issue as "fixed", because you don't actually know if it was fixed, or at least even if some issue was fixed, you don't actually know whether this was the issue the reporter was talking about. On the other hand, you don't want to leave an issue that might have been fixed open, especially if you won't ever be able to close it because you'll never get confirmation.

So, you should close it, but probably not as "fixed". You could invent a custom close reason "maybefixed" or "unconfirdmedfix" if you want to be positive or "reportervanished" if you don't. You could also just say "could not reproduce", and wait for the same bug to pop up for a more responsive reporter.

However, you do not want to expend unnecessary resources on a bug for which you never know whether it was actually fixed or not.